Agenda packet — Rocklin City Council, December 10, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) to annually update the Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for preparing a portion of the information that constitutes the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information that is part of the complete list. The CAL-SITES (ASPIS) database is compiled by Cal-EPA to identify and track potential hazardous waste sites. Searches of the above resources and records identified 36 hazardous material sites in the vicinity of the Planning Area known to handle and store hazardous materials and sites associated with a hazardous material-related release or occurrence. The terms “release” or “occurrence” include any means by which a substance could harm the environment by spilling, leaking, discharging, dumping, injecting, or escaping. Table 4.7-1 displays all of the active hazardous material sites within the Planning Area.

TABLE 4.7-1

OPEN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE SITES

IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANNING AREA
Facility Name Street Number and Name City Case Type Status Beacon Station #1 4505 Pacific Street Rocklin LUST Open Chevron Station 20-
1164
6555 Fairway Drive Rocklin LUST Open
Collegewood, Inc. 4315 Dominguez Road Rocklin SLIC Open Dawson Oil
Company
4325 Pacific Street Rocklin LUST Open
Forest Products
Manufacturing,
Parcel 5
Anthony Court Rocklin SLIC Open
Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners
(formerly Santa Fe
Pacific Pipeline
Partners)
Marlee Way & Stanford
Ranch Road
Rocklin SLIC Open
Nippert Painting 5220 Front Street Rocklin SLIC Open
Pacific Street
Property: US Rentals
Parcel
Pacific Street Rocklin SLIC Open
Palmer Property 5250 Pacific Street Rocklin LUST Open Redwood Oil –
Rocklin
4690 Pacific Street Rocklin SLIC Open
Rocklin Dump 4400 Rocklin Road Rocklin SLIC Open 414
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 41
Rocklin Market Site 4855 Pacific Street Rocklin LUST Open Rocklin Service
Station
4975 Pacific Road Rocklin LUST Open
Santa Fe Pacific
Pipeline/KMEP
Rockling Station
6050 Pacific Street Rocklin SLIC Open
Sierra Pine Limited 4300 Dominguez Road Rocklin SLIC Open South Pacific
Railhouse
Corner of 1st & Rocklin Road Rocklin SLIC Open Tom’s Sierra #23 4395 Rocklin Road Rocklin LUST Open Source: DTSC 2024a; California State Water Resources Control Board 2024 Note: 1 Establishments located in Placer County with Rocklin addresses.

3.0 This location is now the Rocklin Unified School District’s bus yard.

4.0 Case Type Glossary: LUFT – Leaking Underground Fuel Tank – buried tanks used to store fuel products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and heating oil SLIC – Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup LUST – Leaking Underground Storage Tank – buried tanks used to store liquids including fuel products, industrial products or waste The Program 10– Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project proposes increasing the residential density within various areas of the City. Increasing the residential density would not, in and of itself, result in a significant increase of impacts related to the use, generation, storage or disposal of hazardous materials within the City. Individual projects making up the Program 10– Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project properties would adhere to the required measures requiring compliance with Title 8 of 22 of the CA Code of Regulations, Uniform Fire Code, and applicable sections of the CA Health and Safety Code, as well as other applicable regulations.

In review of the Table 4.7-1 list, none of the Program 10– Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project properties are listed on Placer County's Contaminated Sites lists. In addition, an updated record search on the State's Department of Toxic Substances Envirostor and Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Geotracker websites found hazardous waste sites in the Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project vicinity. As noted in updated Table 4.7-1, hazardous materials sites are within 1,000 feet of the Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project sites 1, 6, 8 14 and 21. However, if required, a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) will be prepared for individual projects to ensure that hazards and hazardous materials are in compliance with applicable Code of Regulations as well as any other applicable regulations.

The Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not increase wildland fire hazards in the City beyond what was analyzed in the 2012 GP EIR, as all of the sites constitute infill development.

Implementation of the project would not result in a new significant cumulative impact related to increasing the number of people who could be exposed to potential hazards associate with potentially contaminated soils and groundwater, nor increasing transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials. 415
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 42 ends

All impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials resulting from the Program 10– Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would be mitigated to below a level of significance using the 2012 GP EIR and General Plan Policies relating to hazards and hazardous materials and emergency response and evacuation plans.

The following General Plan policies assist in avoiding or minimizing wildland fire hazards, avoiding or minimizing impacts associated with upset or accidental release of hazardous materials, and conflicts with emergency response: S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-16, S-17, S-18, S-19, OCR-59, S-13, S-14, S-15, S-22, and S-2. These General Plan policies relating to maintaining a City Emergency Operations Plan, coordinating with local and State Emergency Management agencies, and maintaining appropriate standards for roads, consulting with Placer County Air Pollution Control District, requiring site-specific hazard investigations to be conducted, and requiring a risk analysis for bulk hazardous materials facilities.

As noted, the site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that hazards and hazardous materials impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more significant hazards and hazardous materials impact than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.9 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR The 2012 GP EIR Hydrology/Water Quality section identified the hydrological resources, the existing drainage conditions, surface water resources, groundwater resources, surface water quality, groundwater quality, and potential for flooding in Rocklin and the surrounding area. General Plan policies and mitigation measures that serve to reduce impacts are also identified. The following potential impacts to hydrology and water quality were identified.

Impact 4.9.1 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan could result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site or may result in a violation of a water quality standard or waste discharge requirement. However, existing development standards in the Municipal Code and the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.9.2 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan could result in the degradation of groundwater quality resulting from development within the Planning Area. However, existing development standards in the 416
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 43
Municipal Code and the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.9.3 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan is not expected to result in a depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level underlying the City of Rocklin Planning Area. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.9.4 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan could result in a substantial alteration of an existing drainage pattern, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, which may substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site or could result in the creation or contribution of runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system. However, City and Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFCWCD) development standards and the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.9.5 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan may result in the placement of housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map, and may impede or redirect flood flows or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam. However, existing development standards in the Municipal Code and the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.9.6 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan is not expected to be impacted from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Impacts Impact 4.9.7 Land uses and growth under the 2012 General Plan, in combination with current land uses in the surrounding region, could introduce substantial grading, site preparation, and an increase in urbanized development. However, existing development standards in the Rocklin Municipal Code and the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, cumulative water quality impacts are considered to be less than cumulatively considerable.

Impact 4.9.8 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan could increase impervious surfaces and alter drainage conditions in the Planning Area, which could contribute to cumulative flood conditions downstream. However, existing City and PCFCWCD development standards and the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this is considered a less than cumulatively considerable impact. 417
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 44 ends

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – I NVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

The Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project sites are located in various areas of the City with differing drainage patterns, public and private improvements and flood zone designations. The Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project has the potential to result in significant impacts. However, because the 2012 GP EIR found that surface water quality impacts, groundwater quality impacts, groundwater supply impacts, drainage impacts, flooding impacts, risk of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow impacts, cumulative water quality impacts, cumulative flood hazards impacts, would all be less than significant impacts, and the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project sites are all located on project sites included in the 2012 GP EIR analysis, development of the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project sites would not be anticipated to result in any new significant impacts.

Individual project development would introduce new impervious surfaces, which may result in significant impacts relating to increasing the rate of stormwater runoff, which may contribute to localized downstream flooding impacts. However, site specific drainage studies are required and may include the design of on-site detention basins to mitigate downstream flooding effects due to project related peak flows. The design shall be such that estimated pre-development peak flow rates shall be less than 10 percent of the difference between the estimated pre-development and post development flow rates.

Additionally, the following General Plan policies to be implemented on a project basis will be implemented on specific projects to assist in avoiding or minimizing ground water quality and surface water quality impacts:

OCR-11, OCR-39, OCR-49, OCR-50, OCR-52, OCR-54, S-7, S-10, S-11, and S-12. These General Plan policies relating to requiring the protection of wetlands, vernal pools, and rare, threatened and endangered species of both plants and animals through either avoidance of these resources, or implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, minimizing the degradation of water quality through use of erosion control plans and Best Management Practices, maintaining a grading ordinance that minimizes erosion and siltation of creeks and other watercourses, evaluating development along stream channels to ensure that it does not create any of the following effects in a significant manner: reduced stream capacity, increased erosion or deterioration of the channel, consulting with other agencies to develop public education programs that will encourage residents to minimize pollutants and sediments reaching receiving waters, and establishing and coordinating operations and maintenance procedures for all City departments to assure that water quality objectives are not threatened by City operations.

As noted, site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that hydrology and water quality impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Furthermore, any proposed future development of Program 10 project sites will be evaluated under CEQA to determine if the General Plan Update EIR sufficiently addressed any potential environmental effects, or if additional environmental review is necessary. All mitigation measures identified in the 2012 GP EIR will be incorporated into the individual projects, as applicable. 418
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 45
Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant hydrology and water quality impacts than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
LAND USE AND PLANNING IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2012 GP EIR Land Use and Planning section described the existing land uses within and surrounding the City of Rocklin and changes that would occur in association with the 2012 General Plan. Key issues include the environmental impacts of the proposed project relative to dividing an established community, potential conflicts with established land uses within and adjacent to the city, and potential conflicts with the Placer County Conservation Plan (a habitat conservation/natural community conservation plan). The following potential impacts to Land Use and Planning were identified.

Impact 4.1.1 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan would not physically divide an established community.

Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.1.2 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan could create conflicts between adjacent land uses including unincorporated Placer County, the City of Lincoln, the Town of Loomis, and the City of Roseville.

However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.1.3 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan could conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Impact 4.1.4 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, including the Placer County Conservation Program.

Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.1.5 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan, in addition to existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in western Placer County, could result in cumulative impacts to land use in the region. However, the 2012 General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps that would reduce its contribution to a less than significant level. The project’s contribution to cumulative land use impacts is considered less than cumulatively considerable.

LAND USE IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – INVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

The focus of the land use analysis is on land use impacts as well as impacts to open space resulting from the 2021-2029 Housing Element General Plan Amendments and Rezones.

Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project sites would not create land use conflicts between land use designations within the City of Rocklin. The proposed land use designations in the 2021 – 2029 419
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 46 ends

Housing Element would be internally compatible in keeping with General Plan policies. Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project includes modifications to the General Plan Land Use Map. However, these modifications, which are discussed in more detail in the Project Description section above, include land use changes directly associated with the Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project and land use changes due to previously approved/adopted land use decisions such as adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

The revisions to the Land Use Map are consistent with the City’s overall objectives of the 2012 General Plan noted earlier in the Project Description section above. No conflicts would occur because the General Plan Land Use Element includes policies that ensure that land uses are compatible with each other. These include policies specific to Existing Residential Land Uses (Policies LU-6, LU-11); policies specific to New Residential Land Uses (Policies LU-13, LU-14, LU-18, LU-19, LU-21); policies specific to Mixed Land Uses (Policies LU-24, LU-25, LU-26, LU-28, LU29); policies specific to Commercial Land Use (Policies LU-36, LU-37); and policies specific to Industrial Land Use (Policies LU-46, LU-47). Each of these policies addresses consistency between land uses and the appropriateness of development given the context and surrounding uses, as well as protecting potentially incompatible uses from each other through the use of open space setbacks, buffers, fencing, and the like. In addition, subsequent land uses would be subject to regulations under Title 17 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code that includes standards that address compatibility of uses (e.g., Chapters 17.08 and 17.72).

In addition, the following General Plan policies assist in avoiding or minimizing conflicts with applicable plans and policies: LU-3, LU-16, LU-38, LU-39, LU-57, LU-58, LU-60, LU-61, LU-62, LU-63 and LU-67. These General Plan policies relating to requiring that new development in areas contiguous to neighboring jurisdictions be compatible with those existing land uses, discourage residential, commercial, or industrial development at urban densities or intensities in areas on the periphery of the Rocklin planning area, and approve amendments to the Zoning Code and other land use regulations only if the changes are consistent with the General Plan.

As noted, site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that land use and planning impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant land use and planning impact than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
MINERAL RESOURCE IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2012 GP EIR did not contain a mineral resources section considering the Planning Area was not known to contain mineral resources, so the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value 420
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 47
to the region and the residents of the state, or a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan would not occur (as was discussed in the Notice of Preparation for the 2012 GP EIR). Accordingly, significant impacts to mineral resources would not occur with implementation of the 2012 General Plan and no mitigation was required.

MINERAL RESOURCE IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – INVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

The Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project sites are infill sites located within the City of Rocklin Planning Area, which are not known to contain mineral resources. That is, none of the proposed sites are designated or otherwise to be used for mineral extraction. Moreover, none of the sites have been related to mineral mining and therefore, no loss of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource would occur. Potential impacts to mineral resources resulting from Program 10 Implementation would not occur, and impacts are consistent with the analysis of the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.12 NOISE
NOISE IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2012 GP EIR Noise section examined the existing noise environment in the Planning Area and the changes that would occur to noise levels as a result of the 2012 General Plan. The noise section defines terminology used to describe noise, identifies sources of noise, and analyzes the ambient noise environment in the Planning Area. Key issues addressed in this section include construction noise, traffic noise, operational noise, groundborne vibration, and overall increases in noise resulting from implementation of the 2012 General Plan.

General Plan policies and mitigation measures that would serve to reduce impacts and relevant federal, state, and local regulatory agencies and codes regarding noise are also identified. The following potential noise impacts were identified.

Impact 4.5.1 The 2012 General Plan could result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies. Although the 2012 General Plan has mitigating policies and associated action steps designed to minimize the effects of noise impacts, these policies and associated action steps will not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, this would be considered a significant impact, and after application of applicable General Plan policies, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.5.2 Construction activities associated with the 2012 General Plan could result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing conditions and could result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies. However, the 2012 General Plan includes Action Step NA-3 that limits the hours of work. This impact would be considered less than significant.

Impact 4.5.3 The 2012 General Plan could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project and could result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies, as a result of increased traffic on the roadway network. Projected 421
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 48 ends

increases in traffic noise levels could adversely affect noise-sensitive land uses. In addition, future development of noise-sensitive land uses could be exposed to roadway and/or railroad noise levels in excess of the City’s noise standards. This impact would be considered potentially significant, and after application of applicable General Plan policies, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.5.4 Subsequent development associated with the 2012 General Plan could result in new noise-sensitive land uses encroaching upon existing or proposed stationary noise sources or new stationary noise sources encroaching upon existing or proposed noise-sensitive land uses. This could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels or could result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies. As a result, this impact is considered potentially significant, and after application of applicable General Plan policies, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.5.5 The 2012 General Plan could result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration levels. However, the 2012 General Plan includes Action Step NA-3 that limits the hours of work for construction. This impact would be considered less than significant.

Impact 4.5.6 Buildout of the 2012 General Plan would increase transportation noise along roadways within the Planning Area. This would be a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact 4.5.7 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan, in combination with other development in western Placer County, would increase transportation noise along area roadways adjacent to the city. However, the increases in noise levels would be less than 3 dBA and not be noticeable. Therefore, substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project are considered less than cumulatively considerable.

NOISE IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – INVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

Implementation of the Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project will increase the residential density of sites from lands currently slated for mixed use, industrial, commercial and residential uses.

These changes would not alter the anticipated construction noise impacts beyond those identified in the 2012 GP EIR. All construction projects will be subject to the City’s General Plan policies related to construction noise compatibility guidelines.

The Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project designated sites will occur in proximity to existing railways and roadways. However, the need for a site-specific noise analysis and potential mitigation from that analysis, in addition to the mitigation of the 2012 GP EIR, will be imposed on a project-by-project basis. Additionally, site specific noise analysis will take into account operational transportation noise impacts, which are not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts.

The 2012 GP EIR identified potential operational noise impacts; however, application of the applicable General Plan noise policies, and their associated action steps would reduce potential noise impacts associated with development and operation of land uses of the 2012 General Plan. 422
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 49
As determined necessary, future development projects would be required to analyze project-related noise impacts and incorporate necessary noise reduction measures sufficient to achieve the applicable noise standards of the City’s Noise Element. Implementation of these policies and actions will help to reduce impacts associated with proposed development. Noise reduction measures typically implemented to reduce traffic noise include increased insulation, setbacks, and construction of sound barriers. Some measures, such as construction of sound barriers, may have secondary impacts related to aesthetics and safety. However, the feasibility of these measures would be determined on a project-by-project basis.

In addition, the following General Plan policies would assist in avoiding or minimizing noise impacts: N-1, N- 3, N-4, N-5, N-6, N-7, N-8, and N-9. These General Plan policies relating to determining noise compatibility between land uses, and to providing a basis for developing noise mitigation, requiring an acoustical analysis as part of the environmental review process for all noise-sensitive land uses which are proposed in areas exposed to existing or projected exterior noise levels exceeding the level standards contained within this Noise Element, ensuring that stationary noise sources do not interfere with sleep by applying an interior hourly maximum noise level design standard of 45 dBA in the enclosed sleeping areas of residences affected by stationary noise sources. This standard assumes doors and windows are closed, mitigate noise created by new roadway noise sources (e.g., truck routes, roadway improvement projects and new roadways) not contained within the General Plan, so as not to exceed the noise level standards of the Noise Element and restricting development of noise- sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation noise sources that exceed the noise level standards contained within the Noise Element, and requiring that new development in areas contiguous to neighboring jurisdictions be compatible with those existing land uses, discouraging residential, commercial, or industrial development at urban densities or intensities in areas on the periphery of the Rocklin planning area.

As noted, site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that noise impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe noise impacts than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR The 2012 GP EIR Population and Housing section analyzed the socioeconomic conditions within the City of Rocklin including population characteristics, housing, and employment. Key issues include population growth and availability of housing opportunities. General Plan policies and mitigation measures that would serve to reduce impacts were also identified.
423
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 50 ends

Buildout projections associated with the 2012 General Plan for the city’s population growth are shown in Table

4.11-1. These figures indicate continued growth during the General Plan planned time frame through 2030.

The City’s population is projected to increase by 22,293 between 2008 and 2030, for a total increase of approximately 41.4 percent.

TABLE 4.11-1 – CITY OF ROCKLIN POPULATION
Year Population Change % Change Annual % Change
1990 19,033
2000 36,330 17,297 91% 9.0%
2008 53,843 17,513 48% 6.0%
2015 Projected 65,614 11,771 22% 3.1%
2020 Projected 73,414 7,800 12% 2.4%
2030 Projected 76,136 2,722 4% .05%
The General Plan Land Use Element identifies buildout growth potential in the Planning Area. Based on available land and densities identified in the General Plan for the incorporated area and all other areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). As such, it is assumed that the city will reach buildout by 2030 with an estimated population of 76,136 persons and 29,283 housing units. The following potential population and housing impacts were identified.

Impact 4.11.1 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the 2012 General Plan could induce substantial growth or concentration of population in an area either directly or indirectly that results in a physical effect on the environment. However, implementation of the proposed project and the associated General Plan land use designations would not contribute to the significant generation of growth that would substantially exceed any established growth projections. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.11.2 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the 2012 General Plan could result in the displacement of housing and/or persons, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. However, the 2012 General Plan has been developed to avoid displacing a substantial number of housing units or people. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.11.3 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the 2012 General Plan, in addition to existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, could result in a cumulative increase in population and housing growth in the City of Rocklin as well as in the surrounding communities of Roseville, Lincoln, Loomis, and unincorporated Placer County. However, the implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in population or housing growth that would substantially exceed any established growth projections. Therefore, this is a less than cumulatively considerable impact. 424
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 51
POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – I NVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a), economic or social effects of a project are not treated as significant effects on the environment. If the proposed project were to cause physical changes as a result of economic or social changes, then the physical effects (such as the destruction of habitat resulting from housing construction to accommodate increased population) could be considered significant.

Implementation of the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project with increased residential sites, density, and the provision of affordable housing units for low , moderate and above moderate-income households would not cause a substantial increase in population and housing impacts. Conversely, the project further contributes to the City’s goal of providing an adequate supply of housing for all economic segments of the Rocklin community. Specifically, implementation of the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would provide opportunities for affordable housing to low, moderate and above moderate households and therefore the increase in residential density could provide an increased availability of affordable housing, consistent with the 2021 – 2029 Housing Element.

As noted, the site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that population and housing impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe housing and population impacts than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2012 General Plan EIR Public Services section describes the public services that serve the City of Rocklin General Plan Planning Area. These services include fire protection and emergency medical services, law enforcement services, schools, and parks and recreation. Key issues include increased demand for fire, police, and school services, provision of adequate fire flow , and increased demand for parks and recreation. General Plan policies and mitigation measures that would serve to reduce impacts are also identified. The following potential public services impacts were identified.

Impact 4.12.1.1 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan would result in increased demand for fire protection and emergency medical services within the Planning Area. For the City to meet the increased demand and to maintain acceptable response times or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency services, it may be necessary to provide or construct new or physically altered fire-related facilities or services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. However, the proposed Rocklin General 425
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 52 ends

Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant.

Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.12.1.2 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan would result in increased development within the Planning Area and a need for water supply and infrastructure to provide adequate fire flows for fire protection.

The creation of new or expansion of existing water supply infrastructure necessary to maintain acceptable response times or other performance objectives for fire protection and emergency services could create substantial adverse physical impacts, which could cause significant environmental impacts. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.12.1.3 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan, in combination with other existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development within service areas, would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services and thus require additional staffing, equipment, and related facilities under cumulative conditions. Provision of these related facilities could cause substantial adverse physical impacts, which could cause significant environmental impacts. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan Update’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant.

Therefore, this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable.

Impact 4.12.2.1 Implementation of the 20012 General Plan would result in increased demand for law enforcement services within the Planning Area. For the City to meet the increased demand and in order to maintain acceptable response times or other performance objectives for law enforcement services, it may be necessary to provide or construct new or physically altered government facilities, the construction and/or provision of which could create substantial adverse physical impacts that could cause significant environmental impacts. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.12.2.2 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan, in combination with other existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development within the service area, would increase the demand for law enforcement services and thus require additional staffing, equipment, and related facilities under cumulative conditions. Provision of these related facilities could cause substantial adverse physical impacts, which could cause significant environmental impacts. However, the 2012 General Plan’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable.

Impact 4.12.3.1 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan would increase population in the Planning Area, which would subsequently increase student enrollment in the districts’ schools. It may be necessary to construct new or expanded school facilities to serve the increased demand. However, the 2012 General Plan Update’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps, as well as state law requiring mitigation through payment of development impact fees, ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this is a less than cumulatively considerable impact.

Impact 4.12.3.2 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan would increase population in the Planning Area, which could increase demand for post-secondary education facilities provided by the Sierra Community College District. However, the 2012 General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps, as well as state 426
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 53
law regarding siting of school facilities ensure that impacts associated with provision of school facilities will be mitigated. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.12.3.3 Population growth associated with implementation of the 2012 General Plan, in combination with other existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development in the cumulative setting, would result in a cumulative increase in student enrollment and require additional school related facilities to accommodate the growth. However, the 2012 General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps, as well as state law requiring mitigation through payment of development impact fees, ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this is a less than cumulatively considerable impact.

PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – INVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

The Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project includes increasing the residential density with the provision of affordable housing for all economic segments of the Rocklin community. Increasing the residential density may result in significant impacts related to increasing the demand on fire protection/suppression services and emergency services. However, the payment of impact fees would reduce this potential impact to acceptable levels. Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects would also be subject to the payment of City of Rocklin Construction Impact Fees, participation in any applicable financing districts, contribution to the general fund through property tases, and would be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code and Fire Codes, which would reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels.

Implementation of the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would also not result in significantly greater population projections and demand for school services beyond what was analyzed in the 2012 GP EIR. However, to off-set this potential impact, each of the residential projects would be subject to the applicable Rocklin Unified School District, Western Placer Unified School District, Loomis Union School District, Roseville Elementary School District, and Eureka School District fees in accordance with Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code 65995, unless the applicant and the district reach an agreement to mitigate the impacts on school facilities caused by the proposed development.

The Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would result in a less than significant impact related to increasing the demand for park facilities. Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects are required to pay the City’s Park Improvement Fee, the Trails Impact Fee, and the Community and Recreation Facilities Fee prior to filing of a final map in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act or obtaining a building permit, as the case may be.

Ultimately, the Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project results in potential impacts to law enforcement services, fire protection and emergency personnel services, schools, and parks. However, each of the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects is required to comply with the applicable General Plan policies related to public services included in the 2012 GP EIR, including any applicable mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts to public services would be less than significant.

The following 2012 General Plan policies assist in avoiding or minimizing impacts associated with increased demand for fire protection, emergency medical services, adequate fire flows, increased demand for law enforcement services, increased demand for public schools and services and increased demand for parks and 427
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 54 ends

recreation facilities: PF-1, PF-3, PF-4, PF-9, PF-11, PF-12, PF-13, PF-20, PF-21, PF-22, PF-23, PF-25, S-16, S-17, S-18, S-19, PF-1, PF-2, PF-1, OCR-30. These General Plan policies requiring that any development that generates the need for public services and facilities, including equipment, pay its proportional share of providing those services and facilities, requiring that construction of private development projects be coordinated with the construction of public facilities and services that are needed to serve the project, providing for the ongoing operation and maintenance of City services through the use of existing or new Community Facilities Districts, Lighting and Landscaping Districts, Park Development and Maintenance Districts, special taxes and other similar financing mechanisms and maintain inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination, including automatic aid agreements with fire protection/suppression agencies in Placer County.

Additionally, site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that public service impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant public services impacts than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.15 RECREATION
RECREATION IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Parkland Ratios: The City of Rocklin has an adopted standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Per the 2012 General Plan, as of November 2008, the City had a total of 428 acres of parkland, with 219 of those being improved and the rest being unimproved or natural reserve. For those statistics, the park-to-population ratio for both improved and unimproved parkland is approximately 7.94 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

However, the park-to-population ratio for improved parkland is 4.07 acres per 1,000 residents (Riemer 2008).

The 2012 GP EIR’s evaluation of potential parks and recreation service impacts was based on information provided by the City of Rocklin Community Services and Facilities Department, as well as review of the most recent recreation and facilities guides, the existing City of Rocklin General Plan and Municipal Code. The following potential recreation impacts were identified.

Impact 4.12.4.1 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan could increase population in the Planning Area, which could subsequently increase the use of existing parks and recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur and/or require the construction or expansion of parks and recreational facilities to meet increased demand which could have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.12.4.2 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan could increase population in the Planning Area, which could subsequently increase the use of existing parks and recreation facilities such that substantial 428
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 55
physical deterioration of the facilities would occur and/or require the construction or expansion of park and recreational facilities to meet increased demand which could have an adverse physical cumulative effect on the environment. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. This would be a less than cumulatively considerable impact.

RECREATION IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – INVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

As noted above, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would result in a less than significant impact related to increasing the demand for park facilities. Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects are subject to the applicable required impact fees for parks and other public facilities.

Ultimately, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects result in the need to additional parkland in the City. However, each of the Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects is required to comply with the applicable General Plan policies related to public services included in the 2012 GP EIR, including any applicable mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant.

Additionally, site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that recreation impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe recreation impacts than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.16 TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2012 General Plan EIR Transportation section provides an overview of the city’s transportation system and existing levels of service and the changes that would occur to the system as a result of the General Plan Land Uses. The section identifies affected streets and highways, transit services and facilities, bicycle facilities, neighborhood electric vehicles, and truck routes and provides the regional and local regulatory framework.

Since the 2012 General Plan focuses on buildout of the City of Rocklin through the year 2030, the impact analysis contained in this section focuses on a future time horizon that includes full buildout of the City of Rocklin.

Key issues addressed include impacts to signalized intersections in Rocklin, Loomis, Roseville, Lincoln, and Placer County, impacts to state/interstate highway segments and intersections, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and conflicts with at-grade railways. 2012 General Plan policies and mitigation measures that would serve to reduce impacts are also identified. The following potential traffic impacts were identified. 429
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 56 ends

Impact 4.4.1 Implementation of buildout of the 2012 General Plan would cause intersection operations to deteriorate to levels below the LOS C standard (based on 2012 General Plan Update Policy C-10). For intersections already operating below the LOS C standard, the increased traffic could cause intersection operations to deteriorate by volume-to-capacity ratio increases of at least 0.05. This impact is considered potentially significant, and after application of applicable transportation mitigation measures and General Plan policies, the impact was determined to be less than significant.

Impact 4.4.2 Implementation of buildout of the 2012 General Plan would contribute to increased traffic volumes on state/interstate highway facilities, which could cause operations on state/interstate highway segments to deteriorate to levels below those identified in the Caltrans Transportation Concept Report (TCR).

This impact is considered significant, and after application of applicable transportation mitigation measures and General Plan policies, because the City does not have the complete authority, jurisdiction or capability to fund implementation of improvements to highway segments, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.4.3 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan would contribute to increased traffic volumes at state/interstate highway intersections at buildout. This impact is considered significant, and after application of applicable transportation mitigation measures and General Plan policies, because the City does not have the complete authority, jurisdiction or capability to fund implementation of improvements to highway segments, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.4.4 Implementation of buildout of the 2012 General Plan would contribute to increased traffic volumes at some Loomis intersections, which could result in operations at one or more intersections to deteriorate to levels below the LOS C standard, or for intersections that already operate below the LOS standard, the increased traffic could cause intersection operations to deteriorate by an average delay increase of at least 5 seconds. However, traffic modeling and analysis show that increases in traffic resulting from the proposed project would not exceed these thresholds. This impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.4.5 Implementation of buildout of the 2012 General Plan would contribute to increased traffic volumes at some Roseville intersections, which could cause a signalized intersection previously identified in Roseville’s CIP as functioning at LOS C or better to deteriorate to LOS D or worse, or at a signalized intersection previously identified in Roseville’s CIP as functioning as LOS D or E conditions, to deteriorate to the next lowest LOS level. However, traffic modeling and analysis show that increases in traffic caused by the 2012 General Plan would not exceed these thresholds. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.4.6 Implementation of buildout of the 2012 General Plan would contribute to increased traffic volumes at some Lincoln intersections, which could cause the operations at one or more intersections to deteriorate to levels below the LOS C standard, to deteriorate by one grade or its volume-to-capacity ratio to increase by at least 0.05. However, traffic modeling and analysis show that increases in traffic resulting from the 2012 General Plan would not exceed these thresholds. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.4.7 Implementation of buildout of the 2012 General Plan would contribute to increased traffic volumes at Placer County intersections, which would cause roadway or intersection operations to deteriorate to 430
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 57
levels below the LOS C standard or LOS D within one-half mile of state highways, or if an intersection already operates below the LOS standard, cause roadway or intersection operations to deteriorate by one grade or its volume-to-capacity ratio to increase by at least 0.05. However, traffic modeling and analysis show that increases in traffic resulting from the 2012 General Plan Update would not exceed these thresholds. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.4.8 Implementation of buildout of the 2012 General Plan would result in increased demand for transit services, which could cause a conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. However, the 2012 General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant.

Impact 4.4.9 Implementation of buildout of the 2012 General Plan would result in increased demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. However, the 2012 General Plan mitigating policies and associated action steps ensure the impact would be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.4.10 Implementation of the 2012 General Plan would result in an increase in traffic volumes as well as potential increases in pedestrians and bicycle users that could substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. This is considered a less than significant impact based on 2012 General Plan Policy C-33.

TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – INVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

As noted in the 2012 GP EIR, existing conditions with buildout of the 2012 General Plan, which now also includes the 2021-2029 Housing Element, CEQA Guidelines stipulate that any environmental impacts of a proposed project on the existing environment should be evaluated. The existing plus proposed project approach is a realistic assessment when analyzing a particular land use or roadway project, such as a residential or non- residential project or a new roadway facility, since any singular project may be constructed in a relatively short period of time. A General Plan and Housing Element, however, affects development on many individual project sites. It is therefore unrealistic to assume that a General Plan and Housing Element could be built out quickly and thus the analysis of a General Plan and Housing Element are usually based on a long-range horizon. Since the City of Rocklin General Plan has a 20-year-plus time frame and the 2021-2029 Housing Element has an 8- year timeframe, it is an academic exercise to compare existing conditions in the City with buildout of the 2012 General Plan and Housing Element and derive plan-related impacts from that analysis. Instead of preparing an impact analysis for this scenario, the transportation section of the EIR provides, for informational purposes, a comparison of the two scenarios (Existing Conditions and Existing Conditions with Buildout of the 2012 General Plan). The Existing Conditions with Buildout of the 2012 General Plan scenario consists of buildout of the 2012 General Plan (land use and roadway network improvements) within Rocklin and existing conditions outside Rocklin.

The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA.

Traditionally, lead agencies used Level of Service (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Mitigation measures typically took the form of capacity-increasing improvements, which often had their own environmental impacts (e.g., to biological resources). Depending on circumstances, and an agency’s tolerance for congestion (e.g., as reflected in its 431
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 58 ends

general plan), LOS D, E, or F often represented significant environmental effects. In 2013, however, the Legislature passed legislation with the intention of ultimately doing away with LOS in most instances as a basis for environmental analysis under CEQA. Enacted as part of Senate Bill 743 (2013), Public Resources Code section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.” Subdivision (b)(2) of section 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (Italics added.)
Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”21
Subdivision (c) of section 15064.3 (Applicability) states that “[t]he provisions of this section shall apply prospectively as described in section 15007. A lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.” (Italics added.) CEQA Guidelines section 15007, subdivision (b), provides that “[a]mendments to the Guidelines apply prospectively only. New requirements in amendments will apply to steps in the CEQA process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments.” Subdivision (c) adds that “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review , the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” (Italics added.) These provisions, read together with section 15064.3, subdivision (c), make it clear that the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) requirement did not apply to Draft EIRs issued before July 1, 2020. And where a Draft EIR has been issued prior to July 1st, the Final EIR need not address the issue either. This position was articulated by Jeannie Lee, legal counsel in the Governor’s OPR, in publicly broadcast webcasts in 2020.

In Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625-626 (Citizens for Positive Growth), the Court of Appeal refused to address the merits of a pending CEQA appeal involving the 432
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 59
sufficiency of an EIR’s LOS-based analysis of transportation-related impacts. The court found that this particular challenge was moot, in that, if the court were to find problems with the analysis and remand the matter back to the respondent city, the city would be under no obligation to undertake additional LOS-based analysis. After noting that section 15064.3 was “[t]he regulation was promulgated, in part, pursuant to section 21099 and certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency before being approved by the Office of Administrative Law on December 28, 2018,” the court reasoned as follows:
“In mandamus proceedings like this one, “the law to be applied is that which is current at the time of judgment in the appellate court.” [Citations.] Under section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects.

Accordingly, the 2035 General Plan’s impacts on LOS (i.e., automobile delay) cannot constitute a significant environmental impact, as Citizens argues, rendering Citizens’s traffic impacts argument moot.” In short, as of December 28, 2018, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. Thus, the former obligation under CEQA to address LOS in transportation analyses ceased to exist as of that date, except (at agencies’ discretion) with respect to transportation projects. Addenda to EIRs for land use projects such as the Whitney Ranch Retail Project are therefore not required to address LOS issues; and “automobile delay,” as described in terms of LOS, “shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.” The court in Citizens for Positive Growth also emphasized that “CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 is prospective” and did not require lead agencies to undertake VMT analysis until July 1, 2020. (43 Cal.App.5th at p. 626.) As noted above, even as of that date, the VMT requirement only applied to projects for which draft EIRs (or negative declarations) had not yet been issued. An addendum is considered together with a certified Final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (d).) An addendum thus represents a very late stage in the CEQA process that follows long after the issuance of a draft EIR. The new VMT requirement, then, does not apply to an addendum. Here, the EIR at issue was certified in 2012. It was completed approximately 8 years before the VMT requirement took effect.

In light of the foregoing, the City is not required to consider, and indeed may not consider under CEQA, the extent to which the changes in traffic circumstances have affected the LOS analysis performed in the Certified Final EIR. Because LOS shall no longer be considered a significant impact on the environment, and because VMT analysis is not required for an addendum to an EIR that was issued in draft form prior to July 1, 2020, additional traffic analysis is not required for this Addendum. Nonetheless, a discussion of VMT impacts is provided below .

Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, explains that a "lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled.” CEQA generally defers to lead agencies on the choice of methodology to analyze impacts. Specifically, Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), states, "For the purposes of this section, "vehicle miles traveled" refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project". Here the term "automobile" refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. To assist in the determination of significance, lead agencies rely on "thresholds of significance". The CEQA Guidelines define a "threshold of significance" to mean "an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a 433
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 60 ends

particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant".

Lead agencies have the discretion to develop and adopt their own or rely on thresholds recommended by other agencies "provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence". To date, the City of Rocklin has not adopted thresholds of significance for VMT.

CEQA Section 15064.3 establishes a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) threshold for land use projects. Section 15064.3(1) notes that generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact according to the CEQA Guidelines. Moreover, projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should also be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

All of the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects constitute infill development located in proximity to existing major transit stops and along existing high-quality transit corridors. Specifically, the City of Rocklin is served by four Placer County Transit (PCT) bus routes: the Auburn Light Rail Express route, the Lincoln to Galleria to Sierra College route, the Taylor Road shuttle, and the Placer Commuter Express.

PCT is a fixed-route scheduled transit system operated by Placer County. PCT principally serves the I-80 corridor area between Alta and Roseville, the State Route 65 corridor area into Lincoln, and the Highway 49 corridor. Some of the routes are “deviated.” meaning that the buses generally travel on a main route (e.g., I-80) but can deviate from that route up to a certain distance (three-quarters of a mile in the case of PCT) to serve the specific needs of transit patrons. As illustrated in Figure 4.4-5, there are currently 15 bus runs a day in each direction on PCT’s Auburn-Light Rail Express route between Auburn and Sacramento Regional Transit’s Watt/I-80 light rail station. This route provides service to Sierra College and the Roseville Galleria shopping center. It connects with Roseville Transit and RT buses at Auburn Boulevard near I-80. PCT’s Lincoln to Galleria to Sierra College route has 14 runs a day in each direction and services the Sunset Boulevard corridor, Downtown Rocklin, and Sierra College. The Taylor Road shuttle is a deviated route that connects Auburn and Sierra College with seven runs a day in each direction, although service frequency on this route may be increasing. Placer Commuter Express is a commuter bus service traveling from Rocklin Road and Bush Street in central Rocklin to downtown Sacramento with three morning and three afternoon trips. In addition to regular bus service, PCT also provides paratransit services for patrons with more challenging transportation needs.

Such services include a dial-a-ride program in the Rocklin/Loomis area and in Granite Bay. Dial-a-ride also serves the portion of Roseville along the State Route 65 corridor adjacent to Rocklin. Rocklin 2012 GP EIR Figure 4.4-5 (below) shows the PCT transit routes in the vicinity of the City of Rocklin. 434
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 61
Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects are therefore consistent with CEQA Section 15064.3(1) for Vehicle Miles Traveled. Additionally, from a CEQA perspective, VMT can be measured in a variety of ways depending on whether the intent is to capture the amount of vehicle travel generated by a project (i.e. number of vehicle trips multiped by their corresponding trip lengths) or a project's effect on VMT within a defined study area. Project effect information is more meaningful for VMT analysis because land use projects and land use plans often influence the vehicle travel associated with neighboring land uses. VMT is a preferred metric for environmental effectsbecause it captures how a project influences the environment related to fuel consumption and emissions while also serving as an indicator of potential impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and travel safety.

In accordance with 15064.3 (3), if existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicl e miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. 435
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 62 ends

Table 4.4-26 of the 2012 GP EIR, duplicated below , summarizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of vehicle trips originating in or terminating in the City of Rocklin. The table contains estimated data for existing conditions and cumulative conditions with and without implementation of the 2012 General Plan. The table shows that VMT approximately doubles when comparing existing conditions with cumulative conditions. Under cumulative conditions, VMT increases by approximately 1 percent with implementation of the 2012 General Plan.

TABLE 4.4-26

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) WITH ORIGIN OR

DESTINATION (OR BOTH) IN CITY OF ROCKLIN
Exiting Conditions
Cumulative Conditions
Buildout of the
Current General
Plan
Buildout of the
Proposed General
Plan
Change in VMT
with Proposed
General Plan
Daily 1,092,000 2,478,000 2,498,000 +20,000 0.8%
PM Peak Hour 92,500 209,100 212,200 +3,100 1.5%
Relationship Between VMT, Population, and Employment Growth: As indicated in Table 4.4-26, Transportation and Circulation, VMT is projected to increase by approximately 130 percent from an existing 1,092,000 VMT to a buildout VMT of 2,498,000, while the city’s population is projected to increase by 41 percent. This seemingly disproportionate relationship is primarily a result of the limited areas for new residential growth versus nonresidential development as discussed above. As noted in Section 3.0 of the 2012 GP EIR, Project Description, from existing conditions to buildout, residential units are projected to increase from 20,682 to 29,283 units for an increase of 42 percent. Retail, office, and industrial space (land primarily devoted to employment) is projected to increase from an existing approximately 7.2 million square feet to a buildout of over 21.0 million square feet, for an increase of 192 percent. This suggests that the growth in VMT is generally proportionate with the combined growth of population and employment. The additional infill of Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project properties designated for higher density housing providing housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households in proximity to shopping, schools, medical services, and jobs will reduce VMT as indicated in Table 4.4.26. Therefore, VMT impacts analyzed in the 2012 GP EIR will be less than the VMT estimated in the 2012 GP EIR.

The following General Plan policies would assist in avoiding or minimizing impacts associated with intersection operations, minimizing regional traffic impacts and minimizing impacts to intersections in Loomis and Lincoln and other regional traffic impacts, address public transportation impacts, pedestrian and bicycle facilities impacts, and at-grade railway crossing impacts: C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-20, C-22, C-11, C-12, C-13, C-50, C-51, C-53, C-54, C-55, C-56, C-57, C-58, and C-59. These General Plan policies relating to monitoring traffic on City streets to determine improvements needed to maintain an acceptable Levels of Service, updating the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and traffic impact fees at least every five years, or as determined necessary with the approval of major new developments or major general plan amendments not considered in the adopted Capital Improvement Program, providing for an annual inflationary adjustment to the City’s traffic impact fee to ensure that the fee is adequate for the future construction of roads, coordinating with adjacent jurisdictions 436
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 63
toward the completion and improvement of streets that extend into other communities through individual cooperation and/or use of the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), joint powers authorities, and similar entities, considering a variety of funding mechanisms, either independently or with other government agencies, to fund needed regional improvements, and promoting the use of public transit through development conditions such as requiring park-and-ride lots, bus turnouts and passenger shelters along major streets.

Additionally, site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that transportation impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe transportation impacts than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
UTILITIES AND SERVICE IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2012 General Plan EIR Utilities and Service Systems section describes the utilities and service systems that serve the City of Rocklin. Specifically, this section includes an examination of wastewater service, solid waste service, electrical, natural gas, cable, and telephone services. Key issues include increased generation of wastewater flow , provision of adequate wastewater treatment, increased demand for solid waste disposal, and increased demand for energy (natural gas and electricity) and communication services (telephone, wireless telephone, cable television, and broadband).

The impact analysis below focuses on whether or not the physical environment would be significantly affected.

Given that development would be required to meet California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), the 2012 General Plan is not expected to result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

The following potential utility and service systems impacts were identified.

Impact 4.13.1.1 Implementation of the proposed project would increase wastewater flows and could require construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities to accommodate anticipated demand. This construction or expansion could cause significant environmental effects. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Impact 4.13.1.2 Implementation of the proposed project would increase wastewater flows and could require construction of additional collection infrastructure to accommodate anticipated demand. The construction of this infrastructure could result in a physical effect on the environment. These impacts are considered 437
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 64 ends

potentially significant, and after application of applicable mitigation measures and General Plan policies, the impact was determined to be less than significant.

Impact 4.13.1.3 Implementation of the proposed project, along with other existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development in the SPMUD and SPWA service areas, would result in increased demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment. To meet the increased demand, construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities may be necessary. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant.

Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable.

Impact 4.13.2.1 Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased demand for solid waste services within the Planning Area. A substantial environmental impact could occur if there is insufficient capacity in available landfills for disposal of solid waste to meet the increased demand. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.13.2.2 Implementation of the proposed project, along with other existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development within the WPWMA service area, would result in increased demand for solid waste services. A substantial environmental impact could occur if there is insufficient capacity in available landfills for disposal of solid waste to meet the increased demand. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and associated action steps will ensure the impact will be less than significant.

Therefore, this impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

Impact 4.13.3.1 Implementation of the proposed project would require additional electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services, which could result in the need for new systems or supplies or a substantial expansion or alteration to electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications systems that results in a physical impact on the environment. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps, and the requirement that subsequent development under the General Plan comply with energy efficiency standards in Title 24 of the California Code, ensure that the impact will be less than significant.

Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.13.3.2 Development that would occur in association with the proposed project would be required to meet California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). As a result, the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. This impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 4.13.3.3 Implementation of the proposed project, along with other existing, planned, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable development, would contribute to the cumulative demand for electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services, which could result in the need for new systems of supplies or a substantial expansion or alteration to electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications systems that result in a physical impact on the environment or would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. However, the proposed Rocklin General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps, and the requirement that subsequent development under the General Plan comply with energy efficiency standards 438
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 65
in Title 24 of the California Code, ensure that the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this is considered a less than cumulatively considerable impact.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – INVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

The 2012 GP EIR determined that Utilities and Service Impacts would be less than significant. Although, the Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project provides additional housing in lieu of mixed use, commercial, industry and lower density residential, it is not anticipated to result in a significant increase of impacts related to an increase demand for water supply thereby requiring additional water infrastructure beyond what was analyzed in the 2012 GP EIR.

Water Supply: The Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) provides domestic water service in the City of Rocklin. PCSWA plans to increase the total available water supply with a new permanent American River Pump Station and Sacramento Rover Diversion. In its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, PCWA estimated that Rocklin was anticipated to have the greatest expansion of development at build-out. PCWA concluded that its water entitlements were sufficient to meet the projected demands based on 2012 General Plan land use designations and uses with buildout of 76,136 persons and 29,283 housing units.

As required by State law , the City of Rocklin consulted with PCWA in the development of the 2012 General Plan to assure that there will be adequate water supply to serve future development. The City of Rocklin 2012 GP EIR also concluded that PCWA has adequate and reliable water supplies during normal and dry years to meet demand projected in association with the 2012 General Plan. The City coordinates directly with the PCWA to ensure sufficient water supply is available for development.

The Public Facilities and Services Element includes policies to facilitate water conservation to help maintain adequate water supply for the community.

Sewer Capacity: The South Placer Municipal Utility District (SPMUD) provides wastewater conveyance services to the City of Rocklin. SPMUD is a partner in the South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA) which provides wastewater treatment for the City of Rocklin and other municipalities via Regional Wastewater Treatment facilities.

The SPMUD has indicated that the City’s 2012 General Plan, in combination with other projects in the area, would not have a significant unanticipated cumulative impact on wastewater conveyance and treatment. The contribution of growth under the 2012 General Plan would not trigger the need for new regional wastewater conveyance or treatment beyond what has already been planned for by the SPMUD and SPWA. Regional wastewater conveyance and treatment was planned for in the SPWA ’s 2020 Systems Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan, which considered buildout development based on general plans and specific plan as of June 2012, plus future growth for cities and county areas within their service area. The Systems Evaluation also included approved or near certain changes in zones areas where redevelopment is anticipated in Roseville, Loomis, and Rocklin. Therefore, regional conveyance and treatment facilities for the buildout of the SPWA service area, including likely land use intensifications, have been planned for in the systems evaluation. Sewer line extensions and any necessary upsizing of existing line are routinely addressed as part of the development review process. The sewer modeling performed as part of this plan suggested that the Antelope Creek and Secret Ravine areas, aging infrastructure may affect the long-term sewer capacity, however, long-term capital 439
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 66 ends

improvements are planned on these trunk sewers to address the potential for sewer overflows during wet weather. No system deficiencies were found in the Pleasant Grove basin which serves west Rocklin.

Additionally, in 2014 the City Council passed Resolution 2014-15 which authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with SPMUD for the funding and construction of the planned replacement of the Atherton Trunk Sewer. That replacement project has since been completed.

Impacts to utilities and service systems resulting from implementation of the Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would be consistent with the impacts analyzed in the 2012 GP EIR, which were determined to be less than significant impacts. To offset potential impacts, City impact fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, as the case may be.

Additionally, the following General Plan policies to be implemented on a project basis assist in avoiding or minimizing impacts associated with increased demand for wastewater treatment, solid waste services, electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services: PF-1, PF-2, PF-3, PF-5, PF-29, PF-33, PF-35, PF-37, PF-38, PF- 39 and PF-40. These General Plan policies relating to requiring that any development that generates the need for public services and facilities, including equipment, pay its proportional share of providing those services and facilities and requiring that construction of private development projects be coordinated with the construction of public facilities and services that are needed to serve the project, requiring solid waste collection services to ensure the maintenance of health standards, and requiring undergrounding of utility lines in new development, minimizing the need to trench City streets by requiring the installation of telecommunications conduit in new development and major street reconstructions, ensuring that the City is properly compensated, to the extent allowed by law , by utility and telecommunications companies for the use of City rights-of-way.

Site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that utility impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe utility impacts than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.1.18 WILDFIRE
WILDFIRE IMPACTS IN 2012 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2012 GP EIR did not include a chapter designated to wildfire; however, impacts related to wildfire fire risk were included in the Human Health/Hazards chapter, and impacts related to fire suppression services were included in the Public Services chapter.

Although not large in area, the Rocklin Planning Area is characterized by slopes and open space areas that are subject to the threat of brush and wildland fires. If severe weather conditions occur involving high temperatures and winds, sparks from even distant fires can pose a threat to lives and structures. There is little that can be 440
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 67
done to control such risks themselves, other than clearing vegetation in appropriate areas, maintaining vigilance, and requiring adequate access and fire-safe construction materials. The following potential wildfire impacts were identified.

Impact 4.7.1 Implementation of the proposed project could expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires associated with residential development in the wildland-urban interface. However, existing development standards in the Municipal Code and the 2012 General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact.

Impact 4.7.4 Implementation of the proposed project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with adopted emergency response and evacuation plans in the Planning Area. However, the 2012 General Plan mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

WILDFIRE IMPACTS WITH PROGRAM 10 – INVENTORY OF SITE FOR HOUSING/REZONE.

The 2012 GP EIR did not include a chapter specific to wildfire; however, potential impacts related to wildfire risk were identified in the Hazards section and potential impacts related to fire suppression services were included in the Public Services section. The conclusions of the 2012 GP EIR noted that the risk of wildfire is less than significant as noted above.

The Program 10 - Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not increase wildland fire hazards in the City beyond the EIR evaluation. The environmental assessment and conclusions of Impacts 4.7.1 and 4.7.4 noted above are accurate with the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project.

Additionally, the following General Plan policies to be implemented on a project basis assist in avoiding or minimizing wildland fire hazards and emergency response and evacuation plans: S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-16, S-17, S-18, and S-19. These General Plan policies relating to maintaining a City Emergency Operations Plan, coordinating with local and State Emergency Management agencies, identifying in the Emergency Operations Plan evacuation routes and shelter locations for use in case of disasters or emergencies, maintaining appropriate standards for minimum road widths and turnarounds, incorporating fuel modification/fire hazard reduction planning (e.g., weed abatement, open space management plans, firebreaks, planting restrictions) on lands (both public and private) that contain terrain and vegetative features such as grass, woodlands and severe slopes and maintaining inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination, including automatic aid agreements with fire protection/suppression agencies in Placer County.

Site-specific projects are required to be consistent with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies which will ensure that wildfire impacts are addressed on a project specific basis.

Furthermore, any proposed future development of Program 10 project sites will be evaluated under CEQA to determine if the General Plan Update EIR sufficiently addressed any potential environmental effects, or if additional environmental review is necessary. All mitigation measures identified in the 2012 GP EIR will be incorporated into the individual projects, as applicable. 441
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 68 ends

Therefore, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in new or substantially more severe wildfire impacts than what was evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

2.2 FINDINGS
This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project. This addendum to the City of Rocklin 2012 GP EIR, certified in October 2012 (State Clearinghouse Number 2008072115), demonstrates that the analysis in that General Plan Program EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the 2012 General Plan, which included buildout to the year 2030 and that none of the conditions exist that are described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and call for the preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or negative declaration.

The discussion in this addendum confirms that the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project has been evaluated for significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. The determination is that the 2012 GP EIR evaluated the physical impacts likely to result from future development, which includes the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Physical change to the environment would occur from implementation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Therefore, development of housing as considered in the 2021-2029 Housing Element would be consistent with that analyzed in the 2012 GP EIR.

The overall development footprint anticipated in the 2012 GP EIR would not change as a result of implementation of Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project. The 2012 GP EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on land use resulting from mixed urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. Furthermore, the 2012 GP EIR evaluated the existing land use patterns and includes policies and programs to address physical and environmental impacts.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element also identifies sites that accommodate the City’s RHNA. All development in the city must be consistent with the General Plan, and if it is a discretionary action, would also be subject to CEQA. Regardless, all future development has been considered at a programmatic-level in the 2012 GP EIR.

There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2012 GP EIR. The proposed project consists entirely of land uses permitted by project sites’ changed General Plan land use designation and zoning as a result of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and represents no significant change from the overall impacts that were assumed and analyzed by the 2012 GP EIR.

As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the 2012 GP EIR. Thus, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document, as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum. Accordingly, this EIR addendum has been prepared for the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project. 442
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 69
The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the project. The text that follows the provisions of the law relates to the proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element.

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

As noted, the 2012 General Plan Program EIR evaluated a total buildout population of 76,136 persons by 2030 with a projected 29,283 total dwelling units Citywide.

According to Tables 7-1 and 7-15 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, Rocklin has a 2020 population of 70,350 with a total estimated 26,342 housing units or 5,786 persons and 2,941 housing units shy of the projected 2030 estimates evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR.

Infill development of 2,720 additional residential units over the 2021-2029 Housing Element eight-year planning period does not represent a significant increase of housing units and associated potential impacts.

Moreover, although, the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project committed the City of Rocklin to process a series of legislative General Plan Amendments and Rezones to accommodate its Regional Housing Need, considering the City of Rocklin is essentially built out, the General Plan and Rezones are located entirely on properties, which constitute infill development. As infill development, these properties are slated for development in accordance with the current General Plan and Zoning designations. Accordingly, implementation of the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project does not propose to develop new lands which may result in direct physical changes to the environment but allocates the provision of affordable housing on infill properties within the housing development projected for the existing land use designations in the Housing Element and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Although, the policies and programs in the proposed project would change the existing development land use pattern established by the General Plan and evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR, substituting existing mixed use, commercial, industrial and residential land use designations for residential is within the scope of impacts or overriding considerations adopted for the 2012 GP EIR. That is, all lands included in the City’s 2012 GP EIR, are infill properties slated for urban development with potential resulting impacts have already been evaluated. Moreover, all future discretionary actions (i.e., use permits, site plan review, design review, tentative parcel maps, tentative subdivision maps, etc.) require independent and project-specific environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent specific environmental review will assure that project related impacts are less than significant or mitigated to established thresholds. Lastly, future construction in the City must comply with the General Plan, zoning ordinance, state and federal permits, and local development standards.

As discussed previously, the program changes included in the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element are limited to complying with State law, combining programs with similar intent to aid in implementation, or eliminating programs where the City has already completed the identified task. The 2021-2029 Housing Element also identifies sites that accommodate the City’s RHNA as required by State law . The 2021-2029 Housing Element would not affect the urban land use pattern of the City, or result in any physical change to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR. That is, all lands evaluated 443
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis

Page 70 ends

in the 2012 GP EIR were slated for mixed use, commercial, industrial and residential uses. Accordingly, the 2021-2029 Housing Element does not result in any new environmental impacts or increase the severity of any environmental impacts previously evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR. All development in the City must be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning, Municipal Code, Development Standards and Design Standards, and if it is a legislative or discretionary action, would also be subject to further subsequent CEQA analysis.

As all the sites that the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would affect are currently designated for development in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, there would be no change in the physical impact associated with future development. Therefore, policies identified in the General Plan and 2012 GP EIR to reduce physical environmental effects continue to apply to future development and would reduce impacts to the same significance level as identified in the 2012 GP EIR.

2. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

Because a development project must be consistent with the General Plan, zoning, and development standards of the City, and the implementation of the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not materially affect the developed land use patterns in the city or result in any new physical changes to the environment, the resulting impacts would be identical to the previously certified 2012 GP EIR. There would be no new environmental impacts, or an increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts.

3. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the certified 2012 GP EIR. The 2012 GP EIR identified significant impacts for air quality, aesthetics/light and glare, transportation and circulation, noise, cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, and climate change and greenhouse gases. The policies identified in the 2012 GP EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would also apply to the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone projects. Although the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would affect land use patterns in the city and result in physical changes to the environment, there are no new or more severe significant impacts associated with the proposed Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project than what has been previously analyzed in the 2012 GP EIR

4. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

As discussed, the proposed project would not create new impacts or the need for additional mitigation measures. All mitigation measures of the 2012 GP EIR will apply to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project. Implementation of Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would not result in significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of any environmental impacts previously evaluated in the 2012 GP EIR; therefore, there is no need for new environmental review and mitigation measures.
444
A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 9 H O U S I N G E L E M E N T P R O G R A M 1 0 – I N V E N T O R Y O F

S I T E S F O R H O U S I N G / R E Z O N E

C I T Y O F R O C K L I N

2. CEQA Analysis
September 2024 Page 71

5. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

New development resulting from Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project would occur on land designated for development under the 2012 General Plan and/or 2021-2029 Housing Element. Furthermore, all future development in the city would be required to comply with local regulations, including the General Plan, Zoning Code and City Design Standards. Consequently, all projects would be subject to development procedures of the City, such as the Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and subdivision standards. These local regulations guide future development and would address physical and environmental impacts resulting from development. Moreover, the City’s Zoning Code contains a list of permitted uses for each respective zoning district. The 2012 GP EIR anticipated physical and environmental impacts associated with the commercial, industrial and residential permitted uses in the City’s Zoning Code and would, therefore, result in no new impact as part of development of those land uses. The policies identified in the 2012 GP EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would continue to apply to all development associate with the Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Project and serve to mitigate any potential physical and environmental impacts.

2.3 CEQA DETERMINATION
No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous 2012 GP EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as the term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified 2012 GP EIR is adequate, and this evaluation serves as an Addendum to the 2012 GP EIR (SCH No. 2008072115). ________________________________ ________________________________ Signature Date
David Mohlenbrok Community Development Director Printed Name Title
445
Resolution No. 2024- December 10, 2024 Page 1 of 2
221
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 10 - INVENTORY OF SITES FOR HOUSING/REZONE (GPA2024-0003) WHEREAS, California State law requires that each jurisdiction share the region’s housing needs through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, which requires that housing for all household income levels be accommodated; and WHEREAS, to accommodate RHNA obligations, each jurisdiction must have an adequate number of parcels with the development potential and correct land use and zoning designations to support high-and medium-density housing developments, in addition to the traditional single-family residential housing developments; and WHEREAS, the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element for the planning period of 2021- 2029 is the official City response to addressing the community’s housing needs and RHNA obligations; and
WHEREAS, Program 10 of the Housing Element requires the City to rezone and amend General Plan land use designations to apply a General Plan land use designation with the density, size, and location requirements to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligations; and
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the 2012 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate level of environmental review for the General Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GPA2024-0003 proposes amendments to the land use designation of the parcels located in the Revised General Plan Land Use Map, consistent with Program 10 of the Housing Element.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:

Section 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA2024-0003) will amend the General Plan land use designations of the affected parcels and the General Plan Land Use Map, as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rocklin approves the General Plan Amendment for land use designation modifications required by Program 10 of the 2021- 2029 Housing Element, as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
446
Resolution No. 2024- December 10, 2024 Page 2 of 2
1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
____________________________________
, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
447
[Type here]
Exhibit A
2021-2029 Housing Element Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone General Plan Amendment for Land Use Designation Affected Parcels Map 448
Revised General Plan Land Use Map
Legend
Proposed General Plan
HDR
MU
F

EXHIBIT A
GPA2024-0003
449
ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN TO ADD CHAPTER 17.53 TO THE ROCKLIN MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING THE

RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM DENSITY OVERLAY ZONE AND AMENDING THE ZONING

MAP OF THE ROCKLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO DESIGNATE PARCELS SUBJECT TO

THE RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM DENSITY OVERLAY ZONE
The City Council of the City of Rocklin does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Findings.

A. The proposed Ordinance would amend Title 17 - Zoning of the City of Rocklin Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.53, which will establish the Residential Minimum Density Overlay (RMDO) Zone and development standards for the zone and amend the City Zoning Map to reflect the RMDO Zone.

B. The proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments are consistent with and implements the policies of the City of Rocklin's General Plan, including the Housing Element.

C. The proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments to affected properties, their density, and their intensity, are not likely to create serious health problems or create nuisances on properties in the vicinity.

D. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendment on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.

E. The parcels are physically suited to the uses authorized in the Zoning Code amendment.

F. The proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments are compatible with the land uses existing and permitted on the properties in the vicinity.

G. The Planning Commission of the City of Rocklin recommended the Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendment for approval on November 5, 2024 with a vote of 3-0 (two members absent).
450

Page 2 ends

Ordinance No.

Section 2. Authority.The City Council enacts this ordinance under the authority granted to cities by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and Government Code section 37100.

Section 3. Environmental Analysis. An Addendum to the 2012 General Plan Environmental Impact Report has been approved by City Council Resolution No. 2024- XX.

Section 4. Action.

A. The City Council hereby adopts Chapter 17.53 of Title 17 Zoning of the Rocklin Municipal Code as is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

B. The City’s Zoning Map is hereby amended as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the day of its adoption.

Section 7. Publication. Within fifteen days of passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the full text of the ordinance, with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance, to be published in the Placer Herald. In lieu of publishing the full text of the ordinance, the City Clerk, if so directed by the City Attorney and within fifteen days, shall cause a summary of the ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney and with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance, to be published in the Placer Herald, and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.

The publication of a summary of the ordinance in lieu of the full text of the ordinance is authorized only where the requirements of Government Code section 36933(c)(1) are met.
451

Page 3 ends

Ordinance No.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rocklin held on December 10, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rocklin held on ________________________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
____________________________________
, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
First Reading: 12/10/2024
Second Reading:

Effective Date:
452

Page 1 ends

To Ordinance No.

17.53 - Residential Minimum Density Overlay Zone

17.53.010 - Residential Minimum Density Overlay Zone
This chapter establishes the Residential Minimum Density Overlay Zone (the “RMDO Zone”). The creation of this overlay zone provides a mechanism to establish minimum development densities on a given site as a means to help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations.

17.53.020 - Purpose and Intent
The purpose and intent of the RMDO Zone is to designate certain properties as suitable for higher density residential uses. It is intended to facilitate the development of affordable multi-family housing for low- and moderate-income households, enable the city to meet its housing goals, and ensure that affordable housing developments will be compatible with surrounding land uses by establishing appropriate development standards.

Although there are some exceptions, zoning typically establishes the maximum density which is allowed on a given site within the density range established by the applicable General Plan land use designation. The creation of this overlay zone provides for a mechanism to establish a minimum density on a site-by-site basis that is greater than the applicable General Plan minimum density without having to amend the underlying zoning.

Properties included within the RMDO Zone shall be specified on the approved zoning map to indicate both inclusion in the overlay zone and the minimum development density required.

17.53.030 – Applicability; conflicts
A. The provisions of this Chapter 17.53 shall apply to all those parcels indicated on the approved zoning map depicting the RMDO Zone area, and in a manner consistent with the identification of boundaries for other zones set forth in Title 17 and prior decisions of the city regarding the actual boundaries of properties within city land use zones.

B. Should a provision of this Chapter 17.53 conflict with any other provisions of Title 17 of the Rocklin Municipal Code, or any other city resolutions, ordinances, or regulations of the city, this chapter shall control.
453

Page 2 ends

To Ordinance No.

17.53.040 – Allowed Uses
A. Residential Minimum Density Overlay – Residential, 24+ (RMDO-R24+)

1. Allowed uses shall be as regulated by Chapter 17.40 (R-3 Zone).

B. Residential Minimum Density Overlay – Mixed Use, 24+ (RMDO-MU24+)

1. Allowed residential uses shall be as regulated by Chapter 17.40 (R-3 Zone).

2. Allowed nonresidential uses shall be as regulated by the underlying zoning district.

C. Residential Minimum Density Overlay – Mixed Use, 10+ (RMDO-MU10+)

1. Allowed residential uses shall be as regulated by Chapter 17.40 (R-3 Zone).

2. Allowed nonresidential uses shall be as regulated by the underlying zoning district.

17.53.050 – Density
A. The density of a parcel within the RMDO Zone shall be annotated and defined as follows:

1. Residential Minimum Density Overlay – Residential, 24+ (RMDO-R24+) - minimum density of 24 dwelling units per acre.

2. Residential Minimum Density Overlay – Mixed Use, 24+ (RMDO-MU24+) - if developed as residential, minimum density of 24 dwelling units per acre.

If developed as nonresidential, allowed uses and requirements would default to the underlying zoning district, as specified below.

3. Residential Minimum Density Overlay – Mixed Use, 10+ (RMDO-MU10+) - if developed as residential, minimum density of 10 dwelling units per acre.

If developed as nonresidential, allowed uses and requirements would default to the underlying zoning district, as specified below. 454

Page 3 ends

To Ordinance No.

17.53.060 – Development Standards
A. The development standards for the RMDO-R24+ overlay zone designation shall be as follows:

RMDO-R24+
Minimum units per gross acre 24
Maximum units per gross acre N/A
Maximum lot coverage 60%
Maximum building height
Principle Building 50 feet
Accessory Building 14 feet
Setbacks
Front Not less than 20 feet
Rear Not less than 15 feet
Interior Side Not less than 10 feet
Street Side Not less than 15 feet
All development standards, including setbacks and height requirements, may be modified subject to justifications provided and accepted as part of a Design Review approval.

B. The development standards for non-residential development in the RMDO-MU24+ overlay zone shall be consistent with the uses and standards of the underlying zoning district.

C. The development standards for residential development in the RMDO-MU24+ overlay zone shall be as follows:

RMDO-MU24+
Minimum units per gross acre 24
Maximum units per gross acre N/A
Maximum lot coverage 60%
Maximum building height
Principle Building 50 feet
Accessory Building 14 feet
Setbacks
Front Not less than 20 feet
Rear Not less than 15 feet
Interior Side Not less than 10 feet
Street Side Not less than 15 feet
All development standards, including setbacks and height requirements, may be modified subject to justifications provided and accepted as part of a Design Review approval.
455

Page 4 ends

To Ordinance No.

D. The development standards for non-residential development in the RMDO-MU10+ overlay zone designation shall be consistent with the uses and standards of the underlying zoning district.

E. The development standards for residential development in the RMDO-MU10+ overlay zone shall be as follows:

RMDO-MU10+
Minimum units per gross acre 10
Maximum units per gross acre N/A
Maximum lot coverage 60%
Maximum building height
Principle Building 50 feet
Accessory Building 14 feet
Setbacks
Front Not less than 20 feet
Rear Not less than 15 feet
Interior Side Not less than 10 feet
Street Side Not less than 15 feet
All development standards, including setbacks and height requirements, may be modified subject to justifications provided and accepted as part of a Design Review approval.
456
Legend
RMDO-R24+
RMDO-MU10+
RDMO-MU24+
Residential Minimum Density Overlay Zone Map
F

EXHIBIT B
457
City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

City of Rocklin 2022-2025 Economic Development Strategy Update Date:

December 10, 2024
Submitted By:

Sherri Conway, Assistant City Manager
Department:

City Manager's Office
Recommendation:

Receive a status update of the City of Rocklin 2022-2025 Economic Development Strategy, and provide direction to staff regarding further collaboration with the Growth Factory.

Background:

The City of Rocklin’s Economic Development Strategy (Strategy) is a purposeful, concentrated effort to achieve economic success with a focused use of the City’s resources. The goal of the Economic Development Strategy’s activities should result in strategic projects that are intended to have a catalytic effect on Rocklin’s overall economy and City revenues.

In February 2022, the City Council received a presentation regarding the 2022-2025 Economic Development Strategy and provided direction to staff to begin implementation. The Strategy has been focused on identifying and leveraging the strengths of the City of Rocklin and its public and private partners in order to foster a thriving business environment that is conducive to business growth, attraction, and creation. These efforts are an investment that can result in a strong and diverse business community by increasing employment opportunities, higher wage jobs, and securing tax revenues that fund the City’s high-quality public services. At the same time, the workforce development partnerships and the community events will continue to ensure that economic growth is leveraged to create opportunities and lifestyle improvements for Rocklin’s residents.

The City of Rocklin Economic Development Strategy consists of several Action Strategies including:

Data Application
Business Retention and Expansion
Business Attraction
Fostering Local Entrepreneurship and New Business Formation Workforce Development
Marketing, Promotion and Communication
Item Number D1.

458
Significant progress has been made across all areas of the Strategy, with key achievements outlined in the attached report (Attachment 1). These accomplishments reflect meaningful advancements and successful outcomes in several strategic initiatives.

One highlight of the strategy has been an enhanced Development Services business process, where a
single point of contact has been established in the City Manager’s office to provide developers, business owners, and potential business owners with streamlined support and coordination services. The Economic Development ombudsman serves as a dedicated resource, offering personalized assistance throughout the entire development process. This point of contact not only guides developers through the often complex permitting process, ensuring they understand the necessary steps and requirements, but also educates them on the process to facilitate smoother navigation. The ombudsman also works internally across City departments to keep projects moving forward, addressing and overcoming any obstacles that may arise. By proactively resolving challenges and ensuring efficient communication with city agencies, the program plays a critical role in promoting project success and creating a business-friendly environment. This approach has proven invaluable in assisting developers through the entitlement and building phases, ultimately enhancing the overall development experience.

Additionally, the
City has partnered with the Growth Factory to support the scaling of new companies. The Growth Factory, a business accelerator, collaborated with entrepreneurs to develop a compelling funding case and strengthen their leadership capabilities, which enables them to attract the capital and talent necessary to scale a high-growth company. Two cohorts have received funding through the City’s Build Up Rocklin program, supported by $300,000 in ARPA funding. Twenty Rocklin businesses participated in the program receiving support on various business components including building financial roadmaps and leadership development to take their businesses to the next level.

The City and the Growth Factory are currently exploring further opportunities to support local businesses and their successes. Those ongoing conversations will identify how the City can further assist the Growth Factory and Rocklin businesses in fostering innovation and economic growth.

Staff seeks the City Council’s direction regarding continuing this partnership. If there is interest, staff will return with a recommendation for future programming as well as funding.

Staff will conclude implementation of the current strategy in the coming months. Based on best practices research and direction from the City Council, in 2025 a new Economic Development Strategy will be presented to the City Council for consideration.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Economic Development Strategy Update
459
1 CITY OF ROCKLIN

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

STRATEGY #1: DATA
High quality economic data important as it can provide information and insights about the city’s economy as well as current and future growth, including sales tax, employment, and property tax. Data is the foundation of meaningful policy making.

ACTION ITEMS

ACTION ITEM

PROGRESS/OUTCOMES

STATUS

NEXT STEPS
Leverage confidential city-level
California Economic Development
Department (EDD) employment
data and Gross Domestic Product
Data (GDP) through a partnership
with Placer County and a contract
with Beacon Economics to
generate this data on a bi-annual
basis.

Partnership with Placer County established. Placer
County will complete the South Placer Employment
Profiles Update based on 2021 EDD data.

On-going Continue to subscribe to
multiple data platforms;
economic data is a key input
in economic development
with many benefits including
economic growth, can help
develop evidence-based
policy that drives economic
growth.

Identify leading local and regional
industry clusters to target for
growth using Greater Sacramento
Economic Council (GSEC)
available data.

Applicable clusters for Rocklin include: Life Sciences, Advanced Manufacturing, Tech, Start Ups, and
AgTech.

Complete Using real time data,
continue to track progress in
each of these sectors.

Using ESRI, develop, maintain,
and update demographic data,
using GIS mapping tools to
visually express results.

Subscription to ESRI Business Analyst acquired. Staff
is now able to generate a multitude of demographic
reports and analytics on a city-wide level.

Complete and On-
going
. Continue subscription to
better assist our current and
potential businesses.

Acquire commercial and industrial
real estate data through
subscriptions to LoopLink and
CoStar.

Subscriptions to both have been acquired. LoopLink
tool now available on City Economic Development
Website. CoStar analytics tool allows for generation of commercial real estate analytics and reports.

Complete and On-
going
Continue subscription to
better assist our current and
potential businesses.
460
2 STRATEGY #2: BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION
Establish a comprehensive Business Retention & Expansion (BR&E) program to proactively connect with existing businesses in order to better understand and respond to their needs. Retaining existing business and helping them grow is statistically much more likely to land a big business locate. Understanding existing business’ needs for growth, change, and training can lead to programs and partnerships that strengthen businesses and improve the overall business climate.

ACTION ITEM

ACTION ITEM PROGRESS

STATUS

COMMENTS
Understand Existing Business Needs Conducted 50 site visits with small businesses; develop survey instrument
and tracking system.

On-going Business outreach is critical
and should be on going.

Small Business Assistance Establish city business ombudsman role; one single Point of Contact
Complete and on-
going.

This initiative has proven
invaluable for our business
who are navigating through
permitting and site issues
Business Leader Outreach Frequent presentations to and meetings with community business and industry
leaders to discuss city economic
development initiatives.

Complete and on-
going.

Business leaders appreciate
updates from the city.

Conduct an economic-development
educational program for City staff and
members of appointed commissions
Established consistent communication
with CDD staff, businesses are now
directed to CMO
On-going Streamlining the permit
process is essential to
maintaining our existing
businesses who do not have
expertise in this area.

ARPA Business Assistance grant program Third party administrator retained, grant application under development, provided
input on business eligibility criteria. 165
small business and 26 nonprofits were
awarded 2.6 million dollars in funding
Completed Several businesses noted
they were able to stay open
as a result of this grant
program.
461
3 STRATEGY #3: BUSINESS ATTRACTION
Increase Rocklin’s competitiveness for new businesses and those seeking to relocate. Focus on companies that create quality jobs, strengthen high value industries, support existing businesses, and fill vacant tenant spaces. Business attraction complements business retention and expansion by focusing on strategic opportunities with the highest potential benefit to the City’s existing businesses and residents. With an understanding of the City’s top employers, job base, and key tradeable sect ors, the City can undertake strategic initiatives to attract new commercial and industrial development in in focus areas for economic growth.

ACTION ITEM

ACTION ITEM PROGRESS

STATUS

COMMENTS
Target Key Industry Sectors Created electronic site selector packet that responds to key information needs of targeted
prospects.

Complete Update as needed.

Market the City’s available
commercial/ industrial property
listings via subscription with
LoopLink.

Data is available on Choose Rocklin microsite. Complete Update regularly Partnership with Greater
Sacramento Economic Council
(GSEC)
Review and respond to RFI’s for new
business locates as appropriate. Participate
in bi-weekly EDDT meetings, meet directly
with GSEC when appropriate to assist
prospective locates to Rocklin.

Complete Diminishing available real estate
is challenging to attract new
industries to the city.

Leverage partnerships with the
local real estate community to
keep Rocklin top of mind for
primary employers
Regular one on one check in meetings; semi-annual
group broker event.

On-going First broker event is scheduled
for December 11, 2024 in
conjunction with GSEC.

Implement Quarry District Vision Executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement in 2024 with a developer of a new Public
Market on the Big Gun site.

Underway;
property
transfer
anticipated for
2025.

Soils remediation of the site will
need to be completed prior to
property transfer.

Enhanced Community Development
Department Processes
Established single point of contact in City Manager’s
Office to provide support and coordination services
with developers.

Complete and
on-going
This has proven to be valuable
for developers as they navigate
the entitlement and building
process.
462
4 STRATEGY #4: FOSTER LOCAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND NEW

BUSINESS FORMATION
Increase opportunities for small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-up companies by building a network of partnerships and resources to help them succeed and grow in the local economy.

ACTION ITEM

PROGRESS

STATUS

COMMENTS
Leverage and promote the free services of the Sierra
Small Business Development Center to encourage and
support new small business formations.

Refer new small businesses interested
in opening in Rocklin to become SBDC
clients.

Complete Under-utilized service.

Explore partnerships with the Growth Factory to
support scaling new companies in the city.

Two cohorts received money through
build up Rocklin program funded
through ARPA Continue to have regular
meetings with the Growth Factory to
identify opportunities to scale
companies.

Complete The Growth Factory is an accelerator that
invests in entrepreneurs with the capital,
tools, mentorship, community, and
opportunities they need to scale in. More
partnerships should be explored that
would benefit the Rocklin economy.

Provide early permitting and regulatory navigation
assistance.

Provide one on one assistance to new
businesses as requested.

Complete and
on-going.

New and growing companies often need
assistance in permitting.

STRATEGY #5: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Build a reliable pipeline of skilled workers that meet the needs of identified industry sectors. Workforce development in a highly competitive regional labor market has made attracting and retaining a reliable and talented workforce a top business concern.

ACTION ITEM

ACTION ITEM PROGRESS

STATUS

COMMENTS
Partner with Sierra College to build a workforce
pipeline of qualified workers with critical skills
needed in target industries.

Meet regularly with representatives from
Sierra College to understand curriculums
offered (Quarterly).

On-going Maintain a relationship with Amy Shultz, John
Jackson (Sierra College & Jessup) Continue
to promote WFD programs, Career and
Technical Institute (CTE), Meet with
businesses to make them aware of offerings.

Connect businesses with hiring and training
resources that target in-demand occupations and
business needs for a skilled workforce,
On-going meetings with Golden Sierra
Job Training Agency. Track efforts of the
Workforce Development Board.

On-going Business retention visits are an opportunity to discuss training needs.

Meet with representatives from other higher
education facilities responsible for technology
transfer to determine how Rocklin can benefit from
the commercialization of academic research.

Establish and maintain relationships with
Jessup University, Sacramento State
University, and UC Davis.

Underway While not located in the city, other higher
education institutions provide the opportunity
for a well-educated workforce for Rocklin.
463
5 STRATEGY #7: MARKET, PROMOTION, COMMUNICATION
Create a marketing plan that is focused on data. Identify the top industries in Rocklin and the surrounding region and develop campaigns to assist current growing companies and attract potential new businesses tied to the leading local industries.

ACTION ITEM

ACTION ITEM PROGRESS

STATUS

COMMENTS
Brand the City’s Economic
Development Program to provide a
one stop source of data and
information existing and potential new
businesses.

Launched the Choose Rocklin initiative in 2023. This
includes a new Choose Rocklin website and
associated collateral.

Complete;
update
regularly.

The Choose Rocklin website
is an excellent source of
demographic, employment,
and available sites data and
should continue to be
upgraded and promoted.

Identify and participate in key
business events in the region and
state through various meetings, trade
shows, conventions and other
networking opportunities.

Continue to promote the Choose Rocklin brand at
annual business trade shows including Placer
Valley 2022, 2023, and 2024; the Growth Factory
GFX event; GSEC site selector tours, GSEC
targeted industry trips including Germany; Sierra
College Workforce Summit; and various Rocklin
Chamber of Commerce events.

Complete and on-
going.

Develop and share key data and
information for dissemination to the
business community
Created electronic and print marketing collateral
that can be easily customized and tailored to
respond to specific requests for Information from
potential companies.

Complete and on-
going.

Continue city assets to market to the
sports tourism audience to increase
overnight stays in the city.

The City has a seat on the Placer Valley Tourism
Board.

On-going
Provide regular City economic
development updates at meetings of
the business groups and
associations involved in economic
development.

Participate in monthly economic development
stakeholder meetings in the region.

On-going

464
City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) 2025/26
Date:

December 10, 2024
Submitted By:

Angela Doyle, Senior Accountant
Daniel Choe, Deputy Director of Administrative Services Department:

Administrative Services - Finance
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the Successor Agency of the City of Rocklin Approving the Successor Agency's Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for Fiscal Year 2025-26, and Authorizing Successor Agency Staff to Submit the ROPS to the Placer County Oversight Board.

Background:

Pursuant to Assembly Bills 1X26 and 1484 (Bills), all redevelopment agencies in the State of California were dissolved on February 1, 2012. The Bills authorized certain local agencies, such as a city or county, to become the Successor Agency. On January 1, 2012, the City Council elected to become the Successor Agency for the former Rocklin Redevelopment Agency. The Successor Agency is responsible for winding down the affairs of the former redevelopment agency, which includes making payments due for enforceable obligations, disposition of the assets of the former redevelopment agency. The three-acre parcel of the former Big Gun Quarry is the last remaining property owned by the former Rocklin Redevelopment Agency. Staff is currently working on the disposition of the property.

California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 34177(I)(1) requires Successor Agencies to prepare a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) before the period to include the nature, amount, and source(s) of payment of all enforceable obligations of the dissolved Rocklin Redevelopment Agency.

On September 22, 2015, Senate Bill 107 was passed which amended HSC section 34177(o) (1) to require agencies to submit an Oversight Board approved annual ROPS to the California Department of Finance and the County Auditor Controller by February 1, 2016 and each February 1 thereafter.

The City of Rocklin Successor Agency will submit the ROPS 2025/26 to the Placer County Consolidated Oversight Board for approval in January 2025. Approval of the ROPS by the County Oversight Board is required before submission to the Department of Finance by February 1, 2025.

Item Number SA1.

465

The ROPS for July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 requests a total of $1,604,725 to pay current obligations of: Tax Allocation Bond Debt Service, audit fees, bank fees, property maintenance and administrative costs. The City has other funds on hand of $7,827 from interest earned, that must be used towards these obligations. The remaining $1,596,898 is requested from Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) moneys.

The Current Period Enforceable Obligations for ROPS 2024/25 was $1,612,950. The decrease to $1,604,725 for ROPS 2025/26 is due to payments required by the Bond debt service payment schedule. Administrative obligations have remained at $70,000 on both prior ROPS 2024/25 and current ROPS 2025/26 due to the continued efforts by City Staff and outside consultants to sell the last remaining property owned by the Successor Agency.

Administration also consists of staff costs for salary and benefits for employees that perform services directly for the Successor Agency. These services include accounting and audit functions, management of the long range property management plan, debt management, report preparation including the ROPS, budget, disclosures, correspondence, public information, contract preparation, review, legislative analysis, legal services, Oversight Board meeting preparation, meeting attendance, and document management. Once the last property owned by the Rocklin Redevelopment Agency is sold, staff costs will be reduced.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund from accepting ROPS 2025/26.

The ROPS for July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 is requesting a total of $1,604,725, which include Administrative Costs of $70,000. Funding is requested as follows: $1,596,898 from RPTTF and $7,827 from Other Funds on hand at the City.

As authorized pursuant to HSC Section 34183(a)(3), the proposed source of payment for the administrative cost allowance is the RPTTF established and maintained by the County Auditor-Controller pursuant to HSC Section 34170.5(b).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Successor Agency Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit A - ROPS 2025-26
466
Resolution No. 2024- December 10, 2024 Page 1 of 1
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX SA

RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE FORMER ROCKLIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY’S

RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE (ROPS) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026, AND AUTHORIZING SUCCESSOR AGENCY STAFF TO SUBMIT THE

ROPS TO THE PLACER COUNTY OVERSIGHT BOARD
WHEREAS, the Successor Agency for the former Rocklin Redevelopment Agency (“Successor Agency”) is responsible for the winding up of the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency and the disposition of real property pursuant to the Rocklin Long Range Management Plan approved by the California Department of Finance on March 13, 2014; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 34177 requires successor agencies to annually prepare a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS”); and
WHEREAS, Successor Agency staff have drafted the Successor Agency’s ROPS for fiscal year 2025-26, inclusive of the time period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the ROPS must be submitted to the Placer County Oversight Board for their approval, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 34177.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Successor Agency for the former Rocklin Redevelopment Agency as follows:

Section 1. The Successor Agency’s Recognized Payment Obligation Schedule for fiscal year 2025-2026, as set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference, is approved. Successor Agency staff are authorized to submit the Recognized Payment Obligation Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” to the Placer County Oversight Board for their review and approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
____________________________________
, Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
467
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 25-26) - Summary Filed for the July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 Period Successor Agency: Rocklin
County: Placer
Current Period Requested Funding for Enforceable
Obligations (ROPS Detail)
25-26A Total
(July -
December)
25-26B Total
(January -
June)
ROPS 25-26
Total
A Enforceable Obligations Funded as Follows (B+C+D) $ 2,500 $ 5,327 $ 7,827 B Bond Proceeds - - -
C Reserve Balance - - -
D Other Funds 2,500 5,327 7,827
E Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) (F+G) $ 1,243,987 $ 352,911 $ 1,596,898 F RPTTF 1,208,987 317,911 1,526,898
G Administrative RPTTF 35,000 35,000 70,000
H Current Period Enforceable Obligations (A+E) $ 1,246,487 $ 358,238 $ 1,604,725 Certification of Oversight Board Chairman:

Name Title
Pursuant to Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety
code, I hereby certify that the above is a true and
accurate Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for
the above named successor agency. /s/
Signature Date
468
Rocklin
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 25-26) - ROPS Detail July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Item
#
Project
Name
Obligation
Type
Agreement
Execution
Date
Agreement
Termination
Date
Payee Description Project
Area
Total
Outstanding
Obligation
Retired
ROPS
25-26
Total
ROPS 25-26A (Jul - Dec)
25-26A
Total
ROPS 25-26B (Jan - Jun)
25-26B
Total
Fund Sources Fund Sources
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin
RPTTF
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin
RPTTF
$19,379,062 $1,604,725 $- $- $2,500 $1,208,987 $35,000 $1,246,487 $- $- $5,327 $317,911 $35,000 $358,238 13 Audit fee
(continued
operations)
Fees 02/08/
2011
12/31/2037 Chavan &
Associates,
LLP
Audit and
financial
statements -
Bonds
50,600 N $2,500 - - 2,500 - - $2,500 - - - - - $-
14 Arbitrage
(continued
operations)
Fees 03/28/
2006
09/30/2037 Willdan Arbitrage
calculations
- Bonds
18,750 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
15 Bank fees
(continued
operations)
Fees 01/01/
2014
12/31/2037 US Bank Cash with
Fiscal Agent
- Bonds (1/
08/02 - 6/28/
05 - 2/13/07)
65,000 N $5,000 - - - - - $- - - 5,000 - - $5,000
16 Property
Maint
(continued
operations)
Property
Maintenance
01/01/
2014
06/30/2024 City of
Rocklin
Property
Maintenance
Costs
Original 1,000 N $1,000 - - - - - $- - - 327 673 - $1,000 19 Successor
Agency
Costs
(continued
operations)
Admin Costs 01/01/
2014
12/31/2037 City of
Rocklin
Support/
Admin for
Successor
Agency
339,600 N $70,000 - - - - 35,000 $35,000 - - - - 35,000 $35,000 50 2018
Refunded
Tax
Allocation
Bonds
Bonds
Issued After
12/31/10
12/04/
2018
09/01/2037 US Bank 2018
Refunding of
2002, 2005,
2007 Bonds
issued to
fund non-
housing
projects
18,904,112 N $1,526,225 - - - 1,208,987 - $1,208,987 - - - 317,238 - $317,238 469
Rocklin
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 25-26) - Report of Cash Balances July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023
(Report Amounts in Whole Dollars)
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.

A B C D E F G H
ROPS 22-23 Cash Balances
(07/01/22 - 06/30/23)
Fund Sources
Comments
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF
Bonds issued
on or before
12/31/10
Bonds issued
on or after
01/01/11
Prior ROPS
RPTTF and
Reserve
Balances retained
for future
period(s)
Rent, grants,
interest, etc.

Non-Admin
and Admin

1 Beginning Available Cash Balance (Actual 07/01/22)
RPTTF amount should exclude "A" period distribution
amount.
2 728,946 30,248 Other Funds: $573,895 for 22-23 item 50 & $152,443 for 23-24 item 50 & $2,608 for
24-25. RPTTF: $23,356 PPA to use on 22-23
ROPS & $4,792 PPA to use on 23-24 ROPS
& $2,100 PPA to use on 24-25 ROPS.
2 Revenue/Income (Actual 06/30/23)
RPTTF amount should tie to the ROPS 22-23 total
distribution from the County Auditor-Controller
1,204 7,827 999,524
3 Expenditures for ROPS 22-23 Enforceable Obligations
(Actual 06/30/23)
646 573,895 1,020,234
4 Retention of Available Cash Balance (Actual 06/30/23) RPTTF amount retained should only include the amounts
distributed as reserve for future period(s)
560 155,051 6,892 Bonds: interest revenue must be used on bond payments. Other Funds: $152,443
23-24 for item 50 $2,608 for 24-25 item 15.

RPTFF: $4,792 20-21 PPA for 23-24 ROPS &
$2,100 21-22 PPA for 24-25 ROPS.
5 ROPS 22-23 RPTTF Prior Period Adjustment
RPTTF amount should tie to the Agency's ROPS 22-23 PPA
form submitted to the CAC
No entry required 2,646
470
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.

Non-Admin
and Admin

6 Ending Actual Available Cash Balance (06/30/23)
C to F = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4), G = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4 - 5)
$- $- $- $7,827 $- Other Funds consist of Interest Earnings from City Interest Allocation.
471
Rocklin
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 25-26) - Notes July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
Item # Notes/Comments
13 14
15 16
19 50
472

Rocklin City CouncilDecember 10, 2024

Rocklin City Council
December 10, 2024